It's Tucker time

kane knowingly posting patently false lies and propaganda now.

Just unbelievable that you idiots are dumb enough to think that's even close to acceptable.
What's the penalty in here for posting content that's unacceptable? Just curious.

Is it something more than losing all credibility here?
 

kane

EOG master
Tucker the tool said the 17 year old had to murder two protesters to maintain law and order, how this asshole is allowed on the air is sad
 
So you have no problem with the 17 year old showing up at a protest and killing people, because it's the governor's fault

Got it.
Did I say that? The governor enabled it by not bringing in the National Guard.

If the kid wasn't defending himself or someone else, then he belongs in prison. But from the video I saw, he was the one being attacked.
 

kane

EOG master
Fox persuasively argues that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer arrives with the appropriate amount of skepticism about the statements he makes.

The guy gets sued for defamation, and Fox's defense is that the people who watch his show should know he doesn't tell them the truth. I couldn't make this shit up if I tried, and yet his followers believe all the bullshit he spews on a daily basis, LMAO. His bosses literally argued in court that people shouldn't take what he says seriously, too fucking funny
 

kane

EOG master
"This general tenor of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not "stating actual facts" about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in "exaggeration" and "non literal commentary"
 

kane

EOG master
The key words are "reasonable viewer", the average person who listens to that guy isn't a "reasonable" viewer, he or she is a right winger who will believe anything and everything he says. It's beyond funny that his bosses argument in court is that Tucker shouldn't be taken seriously because he doesn't state facts, but rather engages in exaggeration, and this is the right's go to guy for their info, not a surprise the people who watch his show are so grossly misinformed
 

kane

EOG master
Let me know when a host from MSNBC gets sued in court for defamation, and that person's bosses argue that the host shouldn't be held liable since the viewers should know that the host doesn't state facts but rather engages in exaggeration and non literal commentary, derp
 
Let me know when a host from MSNBC gets sued in court for defamation, and that person's bosses argue that the host shouldn't be held liable since the viewers should know that the host doesn't state facts but rather engages in exaggeration and non literal commentary, derp
Is this tucker thing bigger or smaller than Woodwards book?
 
Let me know when a host from MSNBC gets sued in court for defamation, and that person's bosses argue that the host shouldn't be held liable since the viewers should know that the host doesn't state facts but rather engages in exaggeration and non literal commentary, derp
It already happened, dumbfuck.

Rachel Maddow.

And she used the exact same defense that Tucker Carlson's team is using.

Good thing you idiots are so well informed.
 

waco

EOG Dedicated
Does anybody know how I get get a hold of Trumps tax man. I’m tired of paying every year and willing to pay him big money. How do I go about it. Anybody know his name!! TIA
 
Did we need this judge to confirm this?

Judge Rules Tucker Carlson Is Not a Credible Source of News

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...FxLAGhQTRxX1s7UlewA03ovjcbRRgpk-MnuElBFIafKKs
Good stuff:

Do Fox News viewers think Tucker Carlson tells them the truth? Are they, in fact, reasonable? The federal judge, Mary Kay Vyskocil, who herself was appointed to the federal bench by Trump nine months ago, dismissed the case, citing Carlson’s First Amendment protections. That is, Vyskocil bought the argument Fox News was pushing that Carlson is, first and foremost, not a provider of “the news” as we know it, or “facts” as we commonly understand them, and his audience knows this. They’re apparently in on the gag. Fox News doesn’t label Carlson’s speech parody because that’s embarrassing for a company with the word news in its name to admit; it’s not factual journalism because that implies some responsibility for the credibility of the information that you spew. Instead, Fox News lawyers claim, Carlson is not “stating actual facts” but simply engaging in “non-literal commentary.” I couldn’t have described Carlson or Fox News better myself.
From Vyskocil’s opinion:

[In] the context of “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” the Court finds that Mr. Carlson’s invocation of “extortion” against Ms. McDougal is nonactionable hyperbole, intended to frame the debate in the guest commentator segment that followed Mr. Carlson’s soliloquy. As Defendant notes, Mr. Carlson himself aims to “challenge political correctness and media bias.” This “general tenor” of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not “stating actual facts” about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in “exaggeration” and “non-literal commentary.” … Given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer ‘arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism’ …

In other words, “any reasonable viewer” doesn’t actually believe what Tucker Carlson is saying to be true. It is therefore unreasonable to take what Tucker Carlson says as truth. Good note, judge.
 
Last edited:

FairWarning

Bells Beer Connoisseur
The same can be said about CNN and the rest when they run opinion shows most of the day, no?

Unless people actually think Don Lemon and Anderson Cooper are telling the news.
 
The same can be said about CNN and the rest when they run opinion shows most of the day, no?

Unless people actually think Don Lemon and Anderson Cooper are telling the news.
i don't think a lawsuit was filed on either's behalf where their non-news credibility was established and brought to the forefront either.
 
Top